"....an incredibly regressive tax imposed on young healthy people that forces them to buy health-insurance plans that they can't afford and don't need, or pay a fine."

They're right. Young people don't need health insurance. Hell, I've paid for my car insurance all these years and haven't needed thus far. Of course, if I run someone down while texting and driving and the family sues me for $1 million, I might change my tune.

ExcedrinHeadache:I got laid off in May and got a new job in July. The new job put me on 90-day probation, at the end of which I will receive my benefits. So I figured I would go the three months without insurance, I should be fine.

Of course, about two weeks ago I wound up in the Emergency Room (I'm fine, thanks), and they handed me a bill for $12k, which they dropped to $4.5k as a "discount" because I was paying for it myself. I just bought a house in the new town, had just moved cross country, and simply had no money lying around, so I had to borrow from a family member to pay the amount (they offered to bring it down to $3k if I could pay it all at once). And now I'm getting bills from Pathology and am expecting the "physician's bill" as well.

It was a stupid gamble, and I lost. If I'd had insurance, I'd have paid $1500, and that would have been my maximum co-pay for the year. I'm a fairly young guy (38) and pretty healthy in general, but the one time I gambled on no insurance, I lost. Big.

Ain't that a tidy scam? "The bill is $12,000. Oh, wait, we can't chisel your insurance company? Uhhh, how about $4,500? Still can't do it? Okay, let's call it $3,000 cash 'n' carry."

By basic keystone markup, that means it really cost $1500. $10,500 profit pays for a lot of tee times, if the sucker has insurance.

Without overcharging young people, the Obamacare exchanges set to begin on Oct. 1 simply won't work. Neither will the Obamacare-compliant mandated insurance packages being offered by private companies.

Um... that's the point. Young people are "overcharged" based on their medical needs so older citizens, who require much more care, are charged less when they have more difficulty affording it. It's kind of the idea behind insurance, broadening the risk pool to provide a consistency of care when it is needed. Anyone who has health insurance but doesn't get sick for a year is "overcharged."

So the individual mandate is wealth distribution from the young and poor to the old and wealthy? It's too early for me to wrap my head around that kind of stupid. The entire point TFA article is trying to make falls apart when you consider that parents can keep their sprog covered until they are 26. Let's not forget the subsidies either.

/will enjoy the tax benefit of keeping his daughter on his insurance while she goes to college.

Serious Black:unyon: Brick-House: Here's an Idea... how about me make it a Picture ID and then let people use it to Vote?

Serious Black: DeaH: They're right. The left was hysterical. With laughter.

Actually, I am laughing now. Take a look at this poll that asked people how likely they are to purchase health insurance through the exchanges:

[cdn-media.nationaljournal.com image 738x327]

Those graphs would be a whole lot more useful if it stated the relative cohort sizes.

Scribd is blocked for me, but you can look at the topline for the poll here to get the demographic breakdown.

I'm not talking about the polling methodology itself. From the graph, exchange-based healthcare provision is far more popular in the younger demos, which makes sense- Older people are more likely to have either employer-based or receive services via medicare. but what matters is the hard numbers- Exchanges work best if there is a broad pool of participants across ages and other factors. If only 15% of older people end up in exchanges, but the hard number is similar to under-35 people in the exchanges, then the math works. But if participation is skewed too heavily towards any demo, then you'll get distortions on the costs of service provision.

Anyways, I'm Canadian, so its only an intellectual exercise for me. 100% participation and single payer eliminates all of this goofy shiat, and the subsequent administrative overhead that accompanies it.

By basic keystone markup, that means it really cost $1500. $10,500 profit pays for a lot of tee times, if the sucker has insurance.

The insurance company doesn't pay the billed price.

True. Selling medical care is kind of like selling jewelry. They set the "retail price" at some insane, pulled out of their ass level, then offer the product at an UNBELIEVABLE 75% DISCOUNT IF YOU BUY TODAY. Only a complete moron would pay retail.

sammyk:So the individual mandate is wealth distribution from the young and poor to the old and wealthy? It's too early for me to wrap my head around that kind of stupid. The entire point TFA article is trying to make falls apart when you consider that parents can keep their sprog covered until they are 26. Let's not forget the subsidies either.

/will enjoy the tax benefit of keeping his daughter on his insurance while she goes to college.

Young and healthy people don't need any coverage because they can't get injured or fall ill. That only happens to old people, duh.

TheDarkSaintOfGin:Seems that Part 2 of this story isn't getting traction. To think, I popped popcorn and everything.

The TeaDerps have a Part 2 to their Scab King inspired, "let Obama be the President of Ashes and Bones" plan? Other than promoting a tax writeoff that takes healthy people out of the insurance risk pool and in no way covers major medical expenses and letting snake insurance salesmen jump back and forth across state lines to avoid all those pesky regulations?

I got laid off in May and got a new job in July. The new job put me on 90-day probation, at the end of which I will receive my benefits. So I figured I would go the three months without insurance, I should be fine.

Of course, about two weeks ago I wound up in the Emergency Room (I'm fine, thanks), and they handed me a bill for $12k, which they dropped to $4.5k as a "discount" because I was paying for it myself. I just bought a house in the new town, had just moved cross country, and simply had no money lying around, so I had to borrow from a family member to pay the amount (they offered to bring it down to $3k if I could pay it all at once). And now I'm getting bills from Pathology and am expecting the "physician's bill" as well.

It was a stupid gamble, and I lost. If I'd had insurance, I'd have paid $1500, and that would have been my maximum co-pay for the year. I'm a fairly young guy (38) and pretty healthy in general, but the one time I gambled on no insurance, I lost. Big.

what_now:Bloody William: Without overcharging young people, the Obamacare exchanges set to begin on Oct. 1 simply won't work. Neither will the Obamacare-compliant mandated insurance packages being offered by private companies.

Um... that's the point. Young people are "overcharged" based on their medical needs so older citizens, who require much more care, are charged less when they have more difficulty affording it. It's kind of the idea behind insurance, broadening the risk pool to provide a consistency of care when it is needed. Anyone who has health insurance but doesn't get sick for a year is "overcharged."

Neddy doesn't believe in health insurance. He considers it a form of gambling.

NOT having health insurance is gambling. Or I guess if you have really shiatty health insurance that doesn't cover anything, that's also gambling.

theorellior:Y'know, for some reason I feel like this thread, like many in the Politics Tab, is like those old Looney Toons shorts with Ralph the Wolf and Sam the Sheepdog. So far all the libby libtards are present and accounted for, now we just have to wait for the Usual Suspects to punch in and start herpaderping.

I think we struck a nerve. Judging from the left's hysterical overreaction to FreedomWorks' "Burn Your Obamacare Card" campaign, this oppressive transfer of wealth from young Americans to the elderly appears to be the Achilles Heel of the new, insanely authoritarian progressive movement.